| 1 |
On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 07:31:02 -0800 |
| 2 |
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Also, this doesn't seem to have been a problem in the past, and yet |
| 6 |
> our policy was far less free then. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
... |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> We've done just fine for going on 20 years not allowing any notice |
| 11 |
> other than "Copyright xxx Gentoo Foundation." Now we open things up a |
| 12 |
> tiny bit and suddenly everybody and their uncle is saying that their |
| 13 |
> employers won't let them contribute code unless they stick their |
| 14 |
> company name in there. What have they been doing for the last decade? |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Just like Gentoo's policies, things change in corporate environments. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Where things have been fine contirubting without the attribution in the |
| 20 |
past. The new attribution requirement is due to Gentoo changing |
| 21 |
things with the copyright. With that change meant that the new "Gentoo" |
| 22 |
change had to be run by the "new" corporate management structure. That |
| 23 |
result came back that the contributions now require the SIE |
| 24 |
attribution. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Why is that so hard to understand... |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
If you didn't push for the copyright change in Gentoo, then the new |
| 29 |
policy wouldn't have had to be run past the "new bigger" corporate |
| 30 |
lawyers... and the status quo would not have changed... we wouldn't |
| 31 |
be having this run-on rant/bikeshed/waste of everyone's time/... |
| 32 |
typical endless mail list thread which just makes even more current or |
| 33 |
future developers want to quit/withdraw their application/add another |
| 34 |
tick to the con column about becoming a Gentoo dev. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
What you are calling abuse (Not just Rich0, anyone with that opinion) |
| 37 |
is just a consequence of the new GLEP and it's text. Get over it. |
Archives